RealGM

Rules: Vote for 1 player. You may change your vote as consensus emerges but if so, go back and EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. Votes without analysis will not be counted. If, after 2 days, there is not a majority consensus, the top; 2 nominees will have a 1 day runoff election to determine the spot on our list. NBA/ABA only, no college, international play, ABL, or pre-NBA play considered.

It seems to me there are only 4 true candidates for GOAT: Bill Russell, Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, and Kareem Abdul Jabbar.

Wilt was the most individually dominant player of all time. His numbers are so ridiculous that people discount them because no one could have posted them; they are almost inconceivable. And yet . . . he played against Bill Russell throughout the majority of his career and Russell and the Celtics beat Wilt consistently. Russell beat him with superior supporting casts (the Warrior years), equivalent casts (the Sixer years) and even with clearly inferior casts (the Laker years). So, it seems to me that Russell must have been the better player somehow.

Kareem has the most career value if you value longevity rather than peak. His career was almost twice the length of the other three including multiple MVPs, titles, and All-Defense 1st teams. The skyhook was the single most unstoppable shot in NBA history. And yet . . . his individual dominance didn't result in a lot of team success until he got Magic (one of the top 5 to 10 players also) on his team. Why not? Kareem's personality was aloof and withdrawn; he didn't seem to maximize the talent of his teammates unless there was another player to take the lead (Magic or Oscar). Add to that, his great statistical years of the 70s came in one of the most watered down eras in NBA history due to rapid expansion and the ABA. It seems to me that if you need someone else to lead the team, you need a clear case over them in other areas and I don't see Kareem having that clear a case over Jordan and Russell.

Jordan is the popular choice. If you think scoring (truly great and efficient scoring including super clutch performances) is appreciably more important than defense and rebounding, he's an easy choice over Russell. Unlike Russell, he didn't have a weakness on the court, being a terrific wing defender and good passer as well as a great scorer. And yet . . . He was unable to get over the top before Phil Jackson. Every analysis of basketball has shown that hero ball is inefficient, and yet pre-Jackson, Jordan was known for just that ("There may be no 'I' in team but there's an 'I' in win). He was also a player who regularly ripped or disrespected teammates in the media pre-Jackson (and a few times later). If he had played team ball his whole career, he may not have had the players around him to win 11 titles like Russell but he might have started his title streak earlier. Not sure how much of a negative taking 2 years off to play baseball or his selfish comeback with the Wizards are . . . I don't count them for much. Still, Russell was out to help his team win from day one; Michael was out to win for Michael from day one until the GOAT coach was able to convince him (like Wilt and Hannum) that the best way to win was not to do it all himself.

Russell is the most dominant team force in NBA history. The Celtics changed personnel around him completely without slowing down in the slightest. For 13 years, the Celtics were one of the best defenses in the league even with guys like Cousy and Heinsohn or waiver wire guys like Siegfried and Bryant playing key roles; frequently the best defense by a large margin. No one else has ever had that kind of consistent year in and year out impact on his team's performance . . . ever. Add to that Russell's rebounding, where he is one of the 3 GOAT rebounders, even greater than Wilt on a per minute basis. (Rodman probably the greatest but Russell played much bigger minutes and was much more responsible defensively where Rodman developed a habit of leaving his man early to rebound). Although pace is a huge factor, look at the raw numbers. Russell and Wilt averaged close to 25 rebounds a game, the 3rd greatest of all time averaged only 2/3 that many (Bob Petit). He also developed into a terrific passer, though his early game was more that of a (efficient for the time) finisher.

I have heard the argument of portability used against Russell but I would say that over the history of the NBA, he was more portable than Jordan. Even today where scoring near the basket is far less important due to the 3 point shot, a top defensive big like Ben Wallace can be arguably the most valuable player on an NBA champion with less defensive impact and rebounding than Russell (as well as much worse shooting and passing). Add to that Russell's court coverage and ability to get up and down the court for 40 minutes a game in a rich man's Kevin Garnett style and he changes the spacing equation more than a great immobile big like Mutombo. Jordan, on the other hand, would have difficulty in the 50s/60s where the rules were enforced differently to limit driving the lanes (mainly the carry rule although the refs called the charge/block much more for defenders) -- there's a reason that all the great skywalkers of the 60s like Baylor, Hawkins, Gus Johnson were guys who worked a lot in the post even in those days of less spacing. In today's game where offenses are predicated on spacing, having a MJ who didn't develop his range until the last third of his career, would also change the equation forcing his team to rely more on stretch bigs; something that is not that easy. I would say that Russell's game ports better into the 50s and 60s, and into the current decade where Michael ports better into the late 70s through 90s; a slight advantage to Russell. There's a reason that Greg Oden types are drafted ahead of Kevin Durant types despite Durant's greatness.

So, to make a long story short, my vote for GOAT #1 is Bill Russell.

I vote Micheal Jordan as my #1 goat, elite scorer in both volume and efficiency, elite defender, good rebounder for his size, made the players around him better. Super clutch, and dominated on his way to 6 championships. I honestly can't think of any weaknesses in Jordan's game.

The top 3 are Jordan, Kareem and Rusell because all were great but I choose Michael Jordan and here a few reasons why.

-Most scoring titles—10
-Most NBA Finals MVP awards—6
-Highest career scoring average—30.12
-Highest career scoring average playoffs— 33.45
-Highest career scoring average finals (12 games) - 33.57
-Most consecutive games scoring in double figures—866
-Highest single series scoring average NBA Finals—41.0 (1993)
-Highest PER Season- 27.91 and Playoffs 28.59
-Highest WS/PER 48 in Season .2505 and Playoffs - .2553
-Highest Total Playoff Win Shares Despite playing nearly 50 games less than the next player at 39.76
-Never averaged less than 26.6 ppg in any playoff series

Playoffs

Most Points Per Game (min. 25 games)
33.4 by Michael Jordan (179 games)

Most Points in a Game
63 by Michael Jordan

Most 50 Point Games
8 by Michael Jordan (no one else has more than 4)

Most 40 Point Games
38 by Michael Jordan (no one else has even half that all time)

Most 30 Point Games
109 by Michael Jordan

Most 20 Point Games
174 by Michael Jordan (he played 179 playoff games and scored under 20 only 5 times)

Most Playoff Points
5987 by Michael Jordan


#1 in PPG
#1 in PER
#1 in win shares per 48
#1 in MVP award shares

#1 in playoff win shares
#1 in playoff win shares per 48
#1 in playoff PPG
#1 in playoff points
#1 in playoff PER


No one else essentially has the combination of winning, stats, accolades, and efficiency to take that crown.

"Never getting outplayed in by an opponent over the course of a playoff series"otherwise known as

"Came out of every playoff series looking like the best player on the court"

Forget numbers and figures, that record is what makes him GOAT.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basketball/nba/almanac_playoff_scoring_leaders/


MJ never lost a series with homecourt advantage/better seed/better record and is the only player to win multiple titles while leading the league in scoring.

Vote: Michael Jordan

No nominations this time around. And notice that the Jordan vote ignore the other greats and just point to Jordan's strengths without acknowleging that

(a) Roughly half the NBA champions since the introduction of the 3 point line ranked higher defensively than offensively (a greater percentage than that over all of NBA history but that's to a great extent because of the Russell dominance).

(b) Jordan was a terrific defensive guard but the impact of a guard on a team's defense is far less than that of a dominant defensive big . . . and Russell was by far the most dominant help defender ever.

(c) Jordan was the GOAT scorer and a good defender/rebounder/passer for his position but Russel has arguments for GOAT in two of the four keys to winning (Defense and Rebounding) as well as a good passer as well. So, assuming Russell's defense and passing match Jordan's defense and passing; would you rather have a GOAT rebounder who doesn't score particularly well or a good rebounding defensive 2 guard. Both are nice but it's a lot easier to find a strong defensive 2 than a guy who can give you a rebound rate over 20 and over the full course of NBA history, a lot more rings get won with the great rebounder.

I'm voting for Michael Jordan as the #1 GOAT. It was either going to be Jordan, Wilt or Kareem. I went with MJ since he's the GOAT scorer, provided elite defense for a guard, all time basketball IQ, and had no significant weaknesses after becoming a reliable shooter. In addition to the aforementioned reasons, Jordan also had the GOAT peak and was a better overall playoff performer than KAJ and Wilt.

Vote: Michael Jordan

Good posts so far.
When I think of GOAT candidates I think of Jordan, Kareem, Shaq & Russell.

Jordan as a playoff performer had the best Prime, 2nd best Peak followed very closely by Shaq who had the 2nd best Playoff Prime and the best Peak (arguably 2nd best after Jordan).
Then there is Kareem who while not quite as dominant over his Prime years had greater longevitiy then both Jordan & Shaq.
Then there is Russell who penbeast already did a good job arguing for.

Magic, Duncan & Hakeem are also dark horse candidates for me who are on the outside looking in.

My actual vote (if my vote is being counted yet) will be for Jordan.
His raw numbers speak for themselves (I believe many of them have already been posted).
He was I think the GOAT playoff performer and he was certainly in the convo for best ever Finals performer.
As a playoff performer he was incredibly consistent when it came to his overall productivity and impact over his entire career and he did well in adapting his game as he aged so as to still remain an MVP level player.
He was probably the GOAT offensive player while also being an elite defender.

I can see compelling arguments for Kareem (longevitiy), Shaq (similar dominance over Prime/Peak) and even Russell (team impact/success) but in the end I will give the crown to MJ.

Unlike others however I probably don't feel that MJ is the clear-cut GOAT but only a very strong candidate who for now I have chosen to put in that spot.

penbeast has brought up good points though which should be thought about.
Jordan for all his offensive brilliance could not come close to matching the defensive impact of a GOAT defensive C like Russell or even your average Elite defensive C's like Kareem & Shaq.
For example I take Peak Shaq over Peak Jordan because I feel Shaq's edge in terms of defensive impact & rebounding is more valuable and greater then Jordan's edge in offensive impact.
Now Russell was not a Kareem or Shaq on offense but he was a much greater defender, rebounder and had GOAT pro-team intangibles which also considerably added to his impact.

penbeast0 wrote:No nominations this time around. And notice that the Jordan vote ignore the other greats and just point to Jordan's strengths without acknowleging that

(a) Roughly half the NBA champions since the introduction of the 3 point line ranked higher defensively than offensively (a greater percentage than that over all of NBA history but that's to a great extent because of the Russell dominance).

(b) Jordan was a terrific defensive guard but the impact of a guard on a team's defense is far less than that of a dominant defensive big . . . and Russell was by far the most dominant help defender ever.

(c) Jordan was the GOAT scorer and a good defender/rebounder/passer for his position but Russel has arguments for GOAT in two of the four keys to winning (Defense and Rebounding) as well as a good passer as well. So, assuming Russell's defense and passing match Jordan's defense and passing; would you rather have a GOAT rebounder who doesn't score particularly well or a good rebounding defensive 2 guard. Both are nice but it's a lot easier to find a strong defensive 2 than a guy who can give you a rebound rate over 20 and over the full course of NBA history, a lot more rings get won with the great rebounder.

Russell was a slightly above average scorer at best, so his impact in that regard wasn't huge. Yes he was the best defensive player ever and elite rebounder but the GOAT has to have a good balance of offense and defense you can't win games on defense alone.

Most of his rings were won by winning only 2 playoff series, and 3 with the rest. So with that said that's one factor you can't use, not saying you did.

Jordan would have a more diverse impact than Russell, whether he's dropping 40, getting teammates involved, shutting down their best wing player, grabbing rebounds at a high rate etc.

Many people question what Russell's impact defensively would be like in today's game. He would more or less be a rich man's Noah. Jordan's game would be portable in any era.

Basketballefan wrote:Russell was a slightly above average scorer at best, so his impact in that regard wasn't huge. Yes he was the best defensive player ever and elite rebounder but the GOAT has to have a good balance of offense and defense you can't win games on defense alone.

Most of his rings were won by winning only 2 playoff series, and 3 with the rest. So with that said that's one factor you can't use, not saying you did.

Jordan would have a more diverse impact than Russell, whether he's dropping 40, getting teammates involved, shutting down their best wing player, grabbing rebounds at a high rate etc.

Many people question what Russell's impact defensively would be like in today's game. He would more or less be a rich man's Noah. Jordan's game would be portable in any era.

You make some good points but I do think Russell would be much more then just an upgraded Noah.
For one thing Russell would likely be the best rebounder in the league (something Noah is not) and he was also much greater on the defensive end. Russell was Hakeem-like on the defensive end and I think we can all admit Hakeem had a huge impact with his defense alone. So if Russell can provide above Peak Hakeem level defense to go along with GOAT rebounding and GOAT leadership intangibles it is fair to say his impact would be huge.

On the other side one could argue that Russells defensive impact looks greater due to the era he played in.
Floor spacing is different now then it was back then and guards are far more athletic/skilled on the whole. So one could say his defensive impact would be less now but I still think at worst it would be Hakeem level which was in a more recent era and was still huge.

It would be very hard for me to pick against Russell here, but I'm going to wait on MJ arguments before making my decision. I think it very much is a two-man race for me (no disrespect to Wilt and KAJ).

Most voters have seen the strong defensive impact numbers on Russ (and the weak offensive numbers from the Celtics teams) as posted by ElGee. I'm sure he'll repost them in this thread once he makes his selection.

---

I posted these quotes on Russell's defensive range (thanks to ThaRegul8r for supplying them) recently in another thread, but I'm not sure if many have seen them, and they're relevant here:

"With Russell," said Hayes "you never know what to expect. He has such great lateral movement. He's always got an angle on you. He told me that he can take just two steps and block a shot from any position on the court. I remember the first time I was matched up against him. I was out in the corner and he was under the basket. I figured it was safe to shoot. But as I went up, there he was, tipping the shot.
(Pat Putnam, “Big E For Elvin's Two Big Efforts: His coach didn't let him go head-to-head with Chamberlain and Russell on successive nights, but Hayes wowed 'em anyway.” Sports Illustrated. Nov. 25, 1968. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm)

“Bill’s great mobility enabled him to block jump shots all over the court.”
— Pete Newell

“Russell would chase you everywhere. I’ve taken 20-footers that were blocked by Russell.”
— Johnny Kerr

“Bill Russell used to be able to go out and block shots. You’ve got to differentiate that from Wilt Chamberlain, who would block the shots coming to the basket, but Russell would go out and deter you from shooting.”
— Marty Blake, NBA Director of Scouting Services

“He was a unique defensive player because he could literally come out and play a guard or forward. Most centers can’t do that. Even today, there is no way that they can play guards, but he could do that.”
— Jerry West

“[H]e could go out and defend out on the perimeter, which seems to be a lost art today.”
— Marty Blake

“I’ve seen him come out and pick up players like Neil Johnston and Bob Pettit. He doesn’t stand in one spot.”
— Jacko Collins, supervisor of NBA officials

“He was so […] quick off the ball that he could double-team and trap you at a moment’s notice or jump out to help a defender on a pick and roll.”
— Oscar Robertson, The Big O: My Life, My Times, My Game, p. 142

On rebounding (related topic):

“Russell had an effective rebounding range of eighteen feet. If he was nine feet off to one side of the basket, he could race over to pull down a rebound nine feet off to the other side! I saw him do it many times. That’s the kind of athletic ability he had.”
— Tom Heinsohn, Give 'em the Hook, p. 64

---

One other note...I've seen Russell conflated with Mikan a few times in threads relating to this project. I feel like this is inappropriate for a couple of reasons:

1) Basketball is and always will be basketball, but I think the shotclock changed the game. I'd be very interested in research on players before/after the clock was implemented.

2) The NBA through the early-mid 50s (Mikan's era) was far different than Russell's era (which extended through the end of the 60s) partially because alleged quotas seemed to disappear. There were far more black players as we progress deeper into Russell's NBA, and his impact remained at or near the top of the league. I looked at the composition of the NBA in terms of % of players, % of games started, % of minutes played, and % of true shooting attempts (FGA+.44*FTA), and it paints a picture of two different leagues:



---

Now, what I'm looking to learn about Russell:

The shooting/scoring in general is obviously is a concern. What quotes/evidence do we have in particular about how Boston ran their offense? Was the goal truly to get up more shots than the opponent? I just did some brief research on this:



Columns 1 and 2 correspond to Russell, columns 3 and 4 correspond to his teammates, season by season. From the numbers, it seems like this was an equal opportunity offense for the most part, Russell doesn't seem too far removed from his teammates in terms of relative FG%. Among players who played at least half of their games that season, there were only 22 instances of players beating the league average by 2%:



8 were Sam Jones, 5 Bill Russell, 3 Bill Sharman, 3 Bailey Howell, 2 Don Nelson, 1 Frank Ramsey. The cutoff is somewhat arbitrary, but if we extend it to all player-seasons above league average (<2% above, since those are covered above), players with multiple seasons in that range:

4 were Sam Jones, 4 Tom Sanders, 3 Tom Heinsohn, 3 Bill Russell, 2 John Havlicek, 2 Don Nelson, 2 Bill Sharman

Again though, I'd like some quotes before drawing any conclusions on this to demonstrate that inefficient shooting was by design.

---

As for what I'm looking to learn about MJ (I agree with pen that Wilt and KAJ would be the best four candidates, but I don't see myself voting for someone other than Russ/MJ here):

1) Does he have a case as the GOAT perimeter help defender? How much energy did he exert on that end, each season, through 92-93? How would playing today with stricter hand-checking guidelines affect his impact on that end?

2) A common thread in the Jordan Rules and new Lazenby book, is that teams took away the drive from MJ as defenses evolved (this is evident from watching MJ play against Detroit, and later the Knicks). Of course his post game (especially as he worked more and more with Grover) allowed him to still score inside, but I'm wondering, how much should we value his dribble penetration (which is at or near a GOAT level)?

Basketballefan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:No nominations this time around. And notice that the Jordan vote ignore the other greats and just point to Jordan's strengths without acknowleging that

(a) Roughly half the NBA champions since the introduction of the 3 point line ranked higher defensively than offensively (a greater percentage than that over all of NBA history but that's to a great extent because of the Russell dominance).

(b) Jordan was a terrific defensive guard but the impact of a guard on a team's defense is far less than that of a dominant defensive big . . . and Russell was by far the most dominant help defender ever.

(c) Jordan was the GOAT scorer and a good defender/rebounder/passer for his position but Russel has arguments for GOAT in two of the four keys to winning (Defense and Rebounding) as well as a good passer as well. So, assuming Russell's defense and passing match Jordan's defense and passing; would you rather have a GOAT rebounder who doesn't score particularly well or a good rebounding defensive 2 guard. Both are nice but it's a lot easier to find a strong defensive 2 than a guy who can give you a rebound rate over 20 and over the full course of NBA history, a lot more rings get won with the great rebounder.

Russell was a slightly above average scorer at best, so his impact in that regard wasn't huge. Yes he was the best defensive player ever and elite rebounder but the GOAT has to have a good balance of offense and defense you can't win games on defense alone.

Most of his rings were won by winning only 2 playoff series, and 3 with the rest. So with that said that's one factor you can't use, not saying you did.

Jordan would have a more diverse impact than Russell, whether he's dropping 40, getting teammates involved, shutting down their best wing player, grabbing rebounds at a high rate etc.

Many people question what Russell's impact defensively would be like in today's game. He would more or less be a rich man's Noah. Jordan's game would be portable in any era.

(a) If Russell is a rich man's Noah, Jordan is a rich man's DeRozan. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument though.

(b) Russell only went through 2 rounds most years true. He won 27 playoff series to Jordan's 29 I believe . . . of course he only lost 2 (one when he got injured); Jordan lost 7. Would you rather be 27-2 or 29-7?

(c) Oh, and as long as JB is putting in his HCA thing, Russell is more likely to give you HCA than anyone else in NBA history too as well as being more likely to overcome HCA by the other team.

I don't think you can make an argument based on winning that doesn't favor Russell; so you end up back to, "Jordan was the greatest scorer in NBA history so I vote for him." I think there's more to basketball than that.

To me, there are only two in the tier for absolute GOAT and they are MJ and Russell. Since joining this forum my respect for him as a basketball player on what he actually accomplished during his era has skyrocketed. I stated earlier that I really want to read the information about him as I have been questioning whether or not his impact deserves top spot with me. I am torn...and will cast my vote later upon edit once I read more posts.

With Russell, you're talking about a real life fairy tale career. Perfect player, for the perfect team, with the perfect coach. When I think about that it makes me feel at ease about any era bias because his total impact on the court was basically unmatched and has not been close to repeated since. His impact and influence defensively on his teams reached levels unheard of and when you hear him speak about how he did this, you have every reason to believe that he was the Albert Einstein of basketball. Winner as a player/coach, what made Russell so special was his ability to give his team what it needed while allowing all his teammates to concentrate on their strengths in basketball. He....blended around his team and was able to pick his spots when his team needed him to take over. It's such a selfless skill that today..it is seen almost more of a detractor than promoter. The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that even though basketball was at a more early infant stage...to be able to provide that type of impact for that many consecutive years is just plain inhuman in any level of competition. And when you add in the fact that he did this from the side of the ball many have problems coming to consensus with (defense) I think we really start to grasp at straws to try and in a way make excuses for a player being capable of doing that.

A Russell led team.....beat the high offensive scoring Goliath and he didn't need to recharge his battery like MJ while keeping that hunger alive. I'll keep my MJ response off for now, as we all now the story, but I really feel like Russell earns this spot. I am just not ready yet to make that vote, but will edit in to cast. This is a bit of what has been making me think of this lately.

penbeast0 wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:No nominations this time around. And notice that the Jordan vote ignore the other greats and just point to Jordan's strengths without acknowleging that

(a) Roughly half the NBA champions since the introduction of the 3 point line ranked higher defensively than offensively (a greater percentage than that over all of NBA history but that's to a great extent because of the Russell dominance).

(b) Jordan was a terrific defensive guard but the impact of a guard on a team's defense is far less than that of a dominant defensive big . . . and Russell was by far the most dominant help defender ever.

(c) Jordan was the GOAT scorer and a good defender/rebounder/passer for his position but Russel has arguments for GOAT in two of the four keys to winning (Defense and Rebounding) as well as a good passer as well. So, assuming Russell's defense and passing match Jordan's defense and passing; would you rather have a GOAT rebounder who doesn't score particularly well or a good rebounding defensive 2 guard. Both are nice but it's a lot easier to find a strong defensive 2 than a guy who can give you a rebound rate over 20 and over the full course of NBA history, a lot more rings get won with the great rebounder.

Russell was a slightly above average scorer at best, so his impact in that regard wasn't huge. Yes he was the best defensive player ever and elite rebounder but the GOAT has to have a good balance of offense and defense you can't win games on defense alone.

Most of his rings were won by winning only 2 playoff series, and 3 with the rest. So with that said that's one factor you can't use, not saying you did.

Jordan would have a more diverse impact than Russell, whether he's dropping 40, getting teammates involved, shutting down their best wing player, grabbing rebounds at a high rate etc.

Many people question what Russell's impact defensively would be like in today's game. He would more or less be a rich man's Noah. Jordan's game would be portable in any era.

(a) If Russell is a rich man's Noah, Jordan is a rich man's DeRozan. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument though.

(b) Russell only went through 2 rounds most years true. He won 27 playoff series to Jordan's 29 I believe . . . of course he only lost 2 (one when he got injured); Jordan lost 7. Would you rather be 27-2 or 29-7?

(c) Oh, and as long as JB is putting in his HCA thing, Russell is more likely to give you HCA than anyone else in NBA history too as well as being more likely to overcome HCA by the other team.

I don't think you can make an argument based on winning that doesn't favor Russell; so you end up back to, "Jordan was the greatest scorer in NBA history so I vote for him." I think there's more to basketball than that.

Well i'm glad you nitpicked my argument, and did so out of context. My vote for Jordan isn't changing and yours isn't changing for Russell so us going back and forth isn't going to change our minds.

Basketballefan wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:

Basketballefan wrote:Russell was a slightly above average scorer at best, so his impact in that regard wasn't huge. Yes he was the best defensive player ever and elite rebounder but the GOAT has to have a good balance of offense and defense you can't win games on defense alone.

Most of his rings were won by winning only 2 playoff series, and 3 with the rest. So with that said that's one factor you can't use, not saying you did.

Jordan would have a more diverse impact than Russell, whether he's dropping 40, getting teammates involved, shutting down their best wing player, grabbing rebounds at a high rate etc.

Many people question what Russell's impact defensively would be like in today's game. He would more or less be a rich man's Noah. Jordan's game would be portable in any era.

(a) If Russell is a rich man's Noah, Jordan is a rich man's DeRozan. I don't think it's a particularly strong argument though.

(b) Russell only went through 2 rounds most years true. He won 27 playoff series to Jordan's 29 I believe . . . of course he only lost 2 (one when he got injured); Jordan lost 7. Would you rather be 27-2 or 29-7?

(c) Oh, and as long as JB is putting in his HCA thing, Russell is more likely to give you HCA than anyone else in NBA history too as well as being more likely to overcome HCA by the other team.

I don't think you can make an argument based on winning that doesn't favor Russell; so you end up back to, "Jordan was the greatest scorer in NBA history so I vote for him." I think there's more to basketball than that.

Well i'm glad you nitpicked my argument, and did so out of context. My vote for Jordan isn't changing and yours isn't changing for Russell so us going back and forth isn't going to change our minds.

This isn't directed specifically at you but in general. I hope posters come in with an open mind here and aren't afraid to turn over rocks and challenge their own opinions. Some great information will be shared and if we all come in like this....a large part of the learnings fall on deaf ears.

http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/0 ... rview.html

The first two names I offer him are Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.

If you were starting a team, I ask him, and could pick only one of them, which one would you take?

There is a long pause, and finally the old man says, "Jordan."

"You'd take Jordan over the guy who won the Celtics thirteen titles?

Another pause.

"You gotta be realistic," Red Auerbach says. "Listen, everybody knows what I think of Russell. what Rusell did for me. I love Russell. He was the premier shot blocker in the history of the game, and it was more than that with the guy--he was also the premier intimidator. He wasn't just the best rebounder I ever saw; he was the best anticipator. And when he got that ball, he wasn't screwing around with it; he was starting the fast break. He was more interested in winning than anybody I ever saw, he was not a self-promoter, and--you go back and look it up--he was a better scorer than people think. This isn't anything against Russell. Out of all the centers who've ever played, I'd pick him first.

"But Jordan does things nobody could ever do, including selling tickets. He's electrifying on offense, and he is A pretty damn good on defense, too. The thing I love about Jordan, the thing I've always loved, is that he works. He works, and he makes every single player on the floor with him better, every time he's on the floor. And he's a leader."

I have MJ slightly over Russell even though both have cases for GOAT as I view the GOAT in each sport similarly.
A player who has the combination of Winning, stats, accolades, and productivity and near the top in each of them.
Thus the reason I have MJ for Basketball, Babe Ruth for Baseball and Wayne Gretzky for Hockey even though neither of them have won the most titles in the sport.

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league.

In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy. Yes Russell missed 1/3 of the season but still doesn't change that one guy got ROY the same year he came in on his own team as well as a player winning league mvp in his first year. Would be interesting had he went to the team with the worst or 2nd worst record in the league vs the 2nd best record in the league. But with the way it happened he was bound to have the success.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

I'll probably be sticking with my MJ vote since he had the GOAT peak and no weaknesses during his prime. However, I'm willing to change votes in general if I feel adequate evidence/arguments suggest that I've overrated or underrated a particular player.

JordansBulls wrote:http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/09/red-auerbach-esquire-interview.html

The first two names I offer him are Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.

If you were starting a team, I ask him, and could pick only one of them, which one would you take?

There is a long pause, and finally the old man says, "Jordan."

"You'd take Jordan over the guy who won the Celtics thirteen titles?

Another pause.

"You gotta be realistic," Red Auerbach says. "Listen, everybody knows what I think of Russell. what Rusell did for me. I love Russell. He was the premier shot blocker in the history of the game, and it was more than that with the guy--he was also the premier intimidator. He wasn't just the best rebounder I ever saw; he was the best anticipator. And when he got that ball, he wasn't screwing around with it; he was starting the fast break. He was more interested in winning than anybody I ever saw, he was not a self-promoter, and--you go back and look it up--he was a better scorer than people think. This isn't anything against Russell. Out of all the centers who've ever played, I'd pick him first.

"But Jordan does things nobody could ever do, including selling tickets. He's electrifying on offense, and he is A pretty damn good on defense, too. The thing I love about Jordan, the thing I've always loved, is that he works. He works, and he makes every single player on the floor with him better, every time he's on the floor. And he's a leader."

I have MJ slightly over Russell even though both have cases for GOAT as I view the GOAT in each sport similarly.
A player who has the combination of Winning, stats, accolades, and productivity and near the top in each of them.
Thus the reason I have MJ for Basketball, Babe Ruth for Baseball and Wayne Gretzky for Hockey even though neither of them have won the most titles in the sport.

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league.

In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy. Yes Russell missed 1/3 of the season but still doesn't change that one guy got ROY the same year he came in on his own team as well as a player winning league mvp in his first year. Would be interesting had he went to the team with the worst or 2nd worst record in the league vs the 2nd best record in the league. But with the way it happened he was bound to have the success.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

1) Those are primarily offensive players. How good was Boston's team offense in that season, as well as other seasons during Russell's tenure?

2) You still have to face the best team (other than yourself) in the conference, and the best team in the other conference. It's not like the competition faced was equivalent to a first-round team and a second-round team in later leagues.

fpliii wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/09/red-auerbach-esquire-interview.html

The first two names I offer him are Bill Russell and Michael Jordan.

If you were starting a team, I ask him, and could pick only one of them, which one would you take?

There is a long pause, and finally the old man says, "Jordan."

"You'd take Jordan over the guy who won the Celtics thirteen titles?

Another pause.

"You gotta be realistic," Red Auerbach says. "Listen, everybody knows what I think of Russell. what Rusell did for me. I love Russell. He was the premier shot blocker in the history of the game, and it was more than that with the guy--he was also the premier intimidator. He wasn't just the best rebounder I ever saw; he was the best anticipator. And when he got that ball, he wasn't screwing around with it; he was starting the fast break. He was more interested in winning than anybody I ever saw, he was not a self-promoter, and--you go back and look it up--he was a better scorer than people think. This isn't anything against Russell. Out of all the centers who've ever played, I'd pick him first.

"But Jordan does things nobody could ever do, including selling tickets. He's electrifying on offense, and he is A pretty damn good on defense, too. The thing I love about Jordan, the thing I've always loved, is that he works. He works, and he makes every single player on the floor with him better, every time he's on the floor. And he's a leader."

I have MJ slightly over Russell even though both have cases for GOAT as I view the GOAT in each sport similarly.
A player who has the combination of Winning, stats, accolades, and productivity and near the top in each of them.
Thus the reason I have MJ for Basketball, Babe Ruth for Baseball and Wayne Gretzky for Hockey even though neither of them have won the most titles in the sport.

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league.

In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy. Yes Russell missed 1/3 of the season but still doesn't change that one guy got ROY the same year he came in on his own team as well as a player winning league mvp in his first year. Would be interesting had he went to the team with the worst or 2nd worst record in the league vs the 2nd best record in the league. But with the way it happened he was bound to have the success.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

1) Those are primarily offensive players. How good was Boston's team offense in that season, as well as other seasons during Russell's tenure?

2) You still have to face the best team (other than yourself) in the conference, and the best team in the other conference. It's not like the competition faced was equivalent to a first-round team and a second-round team in later leagues.

Yes I understand that, but ROY is ROY. League MVP winner is league mvp winner. First team all nba is first team all nba. That is what he came into the league having from the get go.
Russell had to be the best defensive player for the Celtics to win, however he didn't have to be the best player on the floor for them to win a title. MJ had to be the best player on the floor for the Bulls to win a title.

JordansBulls wrote:

fpliii wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:http://lexnihilnovi.blogspot.com/2008/09/red-auerbach-esquire-interview.html





I have MJ slightly over Russell even though both have cases for GOAT as I view the GOAT in each sport similarly.
A player who has the combination of Winning, stats, accolades, and productivity and near the top in each of them.
Thus the reason I have MJ for Basketball, Babe Ruth for Baseball and Wayne Gretzky for Hockey even though neither of them have won the most titles in the sport.

Russell went to a team from the get go with the 2nd best record in the league.

In 1957 Russell had 2 guys on his team that were 1st team in Cousy and Sharman while he himself did not even make any All NBA team. Also Heinsohn in his 1st year made the allstar team while Russell did not and it was Heinsohn who was ROY over Russell that year, not to mention the C's also had the league MVP on his team in Cousy. Yes Russell missed 1/3 of the season but still doesn't change that one guy got ROY the same year he came in on his own team as well as a player winning league mvp in his first year. Would be interesting had he went to the team with the worst or 2nd worst record in the league vs the 2nd best record in the league. But with the way it happened he was bound to have the success.

Not to mention that for the C's first 8 titles you only had to win 2 playoff series and you were the champion.

1) Those are primarily offensive players. How good was Boston's team offense in that season, as well as other seasons during Russell's tenure?

2) You still have to face the best team (other than yourself) in the conference, and the best team in the other conference. It's not like the competition faced was equivalent to a first-round team and a second-round team in later leagues.

Yes I understand that, but ROY is ROY. League MVP winner is league mvp winner. First team all nba is first team all nba. That is what he came into the league having from the get go.

But what do those mean? If they're primarily offensive players, and the team isn't producing on that end (and is winning defensively), how are the accolades relevant?

Not trying to single you out JB, just curious about your logic here.

fpliii wrote:

JordansBulls wrote:

fpliii wrote:1) Those are primarily offensive players. How good was Boston's team offense in that season, as well as other seasons during Russell's tenure?

2) You still have to face the best team (other than yourself) in the conference, and the best team in the other conference. It's not like the competition faced was equivalent to a first-round team and a second-round team in later leagues.

Yes I understand that, but ROY is ROY. League MVP winner is league mvp winner. First team all nba is first team all nba. That is what he came into the league having from the get go.

But what do those mean? If they're primarily offensive players, and the team isn't producing on that end (and is winning defensively), how are the accolades relevant?

Not trying to single you out JB, just curious about your logic here.

Not following what you mean here. Heinsohn for instance put up 24 and 13 in the finals a rookie and 37 and 23 in game 7. I'm not saying they all produced as a star at all times, just saying what was had from the get go as far as talent.